Assessment of Chukar and Gray Partridge Populations - Idaho Power

Hells Canyon Chukar and Gray Partridge Report, Ratti and Giudice 405.1.2. Fall-Winter SurveysThe study area contained approximately 104 river miles (i.e., river miles 247 to 351).We attempted to survey every 4 th river-mile segment from the water line to approximately 0.5miles laterally from the river, and approximately perpendicular from the general river-flowdirection. Surveys generally followed a circular pattern from the water edge to the nearestadjacent rim, and back to the starting point (but deviations from this pattern were common due toterrain that could not be safely traversed. Surveys were conducted on the Oregon and Idahosides of the river. We conducted fall-winter surveys in 1999 and 2000. Surveys were distributedthroughout the study area between Weiser and Hells Canyon Dam. A general organization ofsurvey segments is provided in Table 1. We were prohibited from surveying some riversegments due to access limitations (e.g., no trespassing designations, steep cliff walls and talusslopes too dangerous for foot access). In such cases we attempted use of the following selectionprocess (in order of priority) to choose alternate sites: 1) change survey site to opposite side ofriver, 2) to ½ or 1 mile upstream, same side, 3) to ½ or 1 mile upstream, opposite side, 4) to ½ or1 mile down stream, same side, or 5) to ½ or 1 mile down stream, opposite side.Each survey consisted of 2 people walking from waterline toward the canyon rim, andmeandering among habitats. All surveys were conducted during open hunting season forpartridge in Idaho and Oregon. We used trained bird dogs (setters and retrievers) to assist withlocating birds. Each survey consisted of 4-6 hours of walking (but did not exceed 6 hr). Allbirds observed were recorded by species and estimated flock size. However, as noted above,these data were intended only to assist with a qualitative assessment of populations and were notintended for statistical analysis or quantitative conclusions regarding populations.During each survey we classified habitat conditions as 1) excellent, 2) good, 3) fair, or 4)poor. Habitat classifications were based on a qualitative assessment of a combination of 1)habitat structure (e.g., woody vegetation vs. grass and forbs, rock outcroppings, talus slopes, cropland), 2) presence of food-plants (e.g., grasses, forbs), and 3) overall habitat quality (e.g., densityand height of cover, grazing impacts, etc.). Classifications were based on an ocular estimate ofoverall habitat conditions within the boundaries of our circular survey pattern. Overall habitatassessment considered needs for escape cover (e.g., from predators and severe weather), nesting